Thanks to Ian for splitting this off.
I come from a multichannel background, so I'm biased. Theater stuff mostly, and some cinema. Also IRCAM and GRM in Paris for music. I've run rigs with up to 20 channels of output. But I do also love 2 channel stereo.
A very, very good - and BIG - 2 channel system can do amazing things in the right space, truely amazing, almost unbelievable. But for us mere mortals, some trickery doesn't hurt. Done well, it can be quite convincing and add heaps to the musical enjoyment. Much more of a "you are there" feeling.
So I can "cheat" and use derived ambience channels. In my case four channels. The stereo signal from my rig is routed to the mains, but also to an old Yamaha DSP-1. It will derive 2 or 4 channels of ambiencce to drive extra speakers. Yamaha did a very thourough study of same famous concert halls and put them in the little black box. They also allow the user to tweak dozens of settings to tune the thing the way you want.
There have been other processors like this made, notably by Lexicon. I have not heard these. Everyone who hears the DSP-1 loves it. Even serious 2 channel guys. The nice thing is, you only need a 2 channel signal input for it to work.
I do have an SACD player and some multichannel discs, but the DSP-1 is more fun. No center channel needed!
That's my take on it. Would love to hear more about what others are doing, or not doing.
I come from a multichannel background, so I'm biased. Theater stuff mostly, and some cinema. Also IRCAM and GRM in Paris for music. I've run rigs with up to 20 channels of output. But I do also love 2 channel stereo.
A very, very good - and BIG - 2 channel system can do amazing things in the right space, truely amazing, almost unbelievable. But for us mere mortals, some trickery doesn't hurt. Done well, it can be quite convincing and add heaps to the musical enjoyment. Much more of a "you are there" feeling.
So I can "cheat" and use derived ambience channels. In my case four channels. The stereo signal from my rig is routed to the mains, but also to an old Yamaha DSP-1. It will derive 2 or 4 channels of ambiencce to drive extra speakers. Yamaha did a very thourough study of same famous concert halls and put them in the little black box. They also allow the user to tweak dozens of settings to tune the thing the way you want.
There have been other processors like this made, notably by Lexicon. I have not heard these. Everyone who hears the DSP-1 loves it. Even serious 2 channel guys. The nice thing is, you only need a 2 channel signal input for it to work.
I do have an SACD player and some multichannel discs, but the DSP-1 is more fun. No center channel needed!
That's my take on it. Would love to hear more about what others are doing, or not doing.
The new Yammy DSP is more HT oriented and not nearly as flexible or complex. The DSP-1 was meant for music, with maybe video as an afterthought. Remember, this is a mid 80's device. How many of us had stereo video sources 20 years ago? Being made at the hight of 2 channel stereo was a lucky stoke for the DSP-1. No video to mess it up. It got simplified and streamlined for the current generation.
There was good bit of info on all this on the Yamaha website, but can't seem to find it now.
But there are other ways to do it, for sure. I'd love to hear one of the current Yammies, or the Lexicon stuff (I like Lexicon). Maybe someone here can comment. There are also plenty of other ways to create good ambience - I don't want to hog the dialog with my choice.
There was good bit of info on all this on the Yamaha website, but can't seem to find it now.
But there are other ways to do it, for sure. I'd love to hear one of the current Yammies, or the Lexicon stuff (I like Lexicon). Maybe someone here can comment. There are also plenty of other ways to create good ambience - I don't want to hog the dialog with my choice.
markus76 said:
I think you need to a look a little deeper and stop relying on "guru's" as the "end all be all" for "what is and is not".
Case in point:
Listener Envelopment (LEV) is just that: Listener Envelopment, or simply put - sound that surrounds the listener. Anything that limits this definition is a "term of art", but only if it's widely recognized for any particular social network.
The simply fact is that LEV has a range of definitions when construed as a term of art. There is fairly broad consensus within this range, but nothing I deem as definitive OTHER than the basic definition given above. We *could* add that it is a subset of "Spaciousness" and that it is not Apparent Source Width (ASW). We could further add that it involves reflections from *"direct sound/sources"* arriving latter in time than those produced in smaller rooms.
Please note the emphasis on "direct sound/sources".
LEV as a term of art was "coined" to reference large venue reflected sound derived from direct sound or "sources" (such as an instrument or singer,etc.), all in relation to the listener.
i.e. it's specifically a "live" acoustical term. (..and defined for concert hall acoustics.)
Sound emitted from loudspeakers are NOT "direct sound/sources" within the context of LEV from most sources on this subject. In other words LEV as a term of art here excludes *reproduction* entirely.
This means that if you want to "hold" to the term's generally accepted use that you can NOT use it for loudspeakers (multi-channel or not), unless the loudspeaker is a reinforcement source within a venue capable of supporting "late arrival" reflections. (..a guitar "amp" in a concert hall would be an example - though note that it is not a "reproduction" of sound.)
Recently LEV has been "b@stardized" for use in the context of reproduction.
How accepted this newer use is - is relative to who you are asking.
The problem I have with this newer use is that it is NOT a "like-kind" use of the term.
1. The loudspeakers are not "driving" the room and *generating* late arrival reflections as a "direct sound/source" would be in respect to a "live acoustic" in an appropriate venue. NOT THE SAME.
2. The loudspeakers are not each producing their own single sound source as a "direct sound/source" would be with respect to a "live acoustic". NOT THE SAME.
3. The loudspeakers ARE producing additional venue ambient information (real or virtual) that a "direct sound/source" would NOT do in a "live acoustic". NOT THE SAME.
ALL of these differences are still present - REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL LOUDSPEAKERS USED.
Note however that "just" a pair of loudspeakers, (and in fact a *single loudspeaker*), *can* reproduce the sound from late arrival reflections (and venue reflections generally) - even with purely Mono recordings (which are rare). Further:
1. The *character* of these reproduced reflections have almost nothing to do with the listener's room (unless of course the room's effects substantially alter the sound).
2. Because of each loudspeaker's dispersion, and because small rooms reflect sound - the listener will in fact be surrounded by sound, sound which includes the reproduced reflections.
Note that *if* you extend LEV to encompass reproduction, then *rationally* you must accept that even a single generic loudspeaker with a Mono recording containing some ambient cues (perhaps just late arrival reflections if we so wish to further the limitation), can provide LEV. It may not reproduce LEV to the *degree* you or others find *compelling*, but it still reproduces "venue" generated reflections.
At its very best multi-channel can *add* to the perception of listeners being surrounded by over-coming some limitations with regard to 2-channel stereo and Apparent Source Width VERSUS Listener Envelopment with respect to time, intensity, and direction. (..something I might go into in another post here.) THIS, I believe - is where you and others are "hung-up" on the perceived need for multi-channel sound and what "is" or "is not" LEV.
All of this is to say though that what you personally believe represents LEV, is not necessarily what others would agree upon (even those considered experts in audio). In other words it's all a matter of perspective, and for me I'll stick with the "common denominator": sound surrounding the listener.
JoshK said:
In the context of even *good* two channel, they could substantially improve several aspects of sound reproduction.
The problem was/is that:
1. Most music isn't recorded in a common venue.
2. Even with common venues - there were precious few modeled for the processor.
Basically it was fantastic IF you had a recording either recorded in the modeled venue, OR recorded in a venue very similar to it. Otherwise it tended to make everything sound generic which quickly becomes tiring over time.
It was fantastic for for large screen viewing and listening of Pro and College football.
I think that later Sony's "ES" brand produced something similar but more sophisticated in their top Receivers in an effort to better "tailor" the sound. While it was better over a wider range of recordings, it was never as compelling as the Yamaha stuff.
ScottG said:
We thus presume that my clock radio, given a source containing ambient cues, produces LEV?
Naw, that ain't happening but in an alternate universe; to simulate those experienced in the concert hall, they've got to be sufficiently delayed and separately reproduced from the appropriate direction(s) to ACTUALLY envelop the listener, as opposed to merely comprising reverb.
I suppose we COULD get there two-channel with matrixing, however.
[WAVE radio notwithstanding.
]ScottG said:
I have several of those, but never hooked up the surround channels.
Sounds like I'd better get busy and do that....
panomaniac said:
ME!
In fact I had surround-sound with several different settings, and it was all hooked up to video.
It's what I *started* with when I started this hobby. Yes, I started with surround sound for music listening (..in addition to video), perhaps principally because that was how I listened to music in the car.
In fact I still enjoy surround sound for listening to music, but it isn't my first choice for "critical" listening.ZilchLab said:
We thus presume that my clock radio, given a source containing ambient cues, produces LEV?
Naw, that ain't happening; to simulate those experienced in the concert hall, they've got to be sufficiently delayed and separately reproduced from the appropriate direction(s) to ACTUALLY envelop the listener, as opposed to merely comprising reverb.
I suppose we could get there two-channel with matrixing, however.
[WAVE radio notwithstanding.
I have several of those, but never hooked up the surround channels.
Sounds like I'd better get busy and do that....
My Clock Radio does precisely that - every morning when I wake-up. It isn't terribly compelling though.
What's required to make it more compelling though is perhaps another post.
Heck, as I remember it - those Sony's even had fully adjustable digital eq..
ScottG said:
Heck, as I remember it - those Sony's even had fully adjustable digital eq..
Yeah, parametrics, to adjust room and hall curves to taste.
I forget the number and resolution, 'cause they're all set "flat."
They aren't in my "HEY, let's dork with THIS" systems.
There's also a bunch of width stuff in DEQ2496 I haven't played with yet, either....
The width control on the DEQ is not bad at all. More subtle than you might think - at least going wide. Going narrow it can close down to mono very fast. I like it for internet radio where some of the space has been lost in the compression. Not bad on some vintage recordings either, where they where very careful not to get too wide for techincal reasons.
Gosh Scott, you were certainly ahead of your time! I do remember the stereo VCRs back in the 80s, but did not own one until about '93. Actually knew a guy who worked for the radio and did very nice field recordings with one back in the '80s.
But what he heck were your stereo video sources back then? Was there much to be had?
Gosh Scott, you were certainly ahead of your time! I do remember the stereo VCRs back in the 80s, but did not own one until about '93. Actually knew a guy who worked for the radio and did very nice field recordings with one back in the '80s.
But what he heck were your stereo video sources back then? Was there much to be had?
panomaniac said:
Disclaimer, I'm not a big fan of DSP modes but I haven't heard any of the Yamaha proprietary modes so maybe I'd like them. That said, I just looked at the manual for a Yamaha Z9 and it has presets for about 20 different music venues (concert halls, churches, clubs, etc.) as well as a bunch of presets for movies. And, if you don't like any of those, each preset has about 30 DSP parameters that you can change. I don't know if the cheaper Yammy receivers include all that or not.
Edit: I just looked at a Yammy 2400 manual. It doesn't have as many presets but it still has all the adjustments.
panomaniac said:
The one that "sticks-out" the most (in my memory) was Miami Vice in '84. After that TV programs in major time-slots on major channels started to do it quite a bit more - particularly for sporting events. I purchased a low cost (but rather good) Emerson HiFi stereo VCR around then (..which lasted for more than a decade).
catapult said:
I think *memory* vs. track-specific management is the worst problem then and now.
Even if you could get something that sounded better for a particular track than what the preset provided - you still had to put it into memory, and there was never enough of that.
Today (IMO) your better off convolving direct-to-disk (hard disc) with the "plug-ins" of your choice, so that when you replay the track you don't worry about getting the correct effect (nor the negative sound effects of real-time processing). (It is however still very tedious to go through and determine the exact settings you want for each track.)
Hello!
Do You mean something that I have proposed here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/121385-loudspeakers-room-system.html#post1484811 ?
this thread deserves to be brought back
Has anybody actually given a try to this heretical combination of Ohm F (or similar speakers) and the Beveridge setup?
Graaf,
If I am correct, Zilch is RIP, so perhaps you may wish to start a new thread, since he can not comment. Apologies if I am thinking of another person, of course.
Unclear to me, btw why you would want or need to combine two full range speakers??
I was discussing them in terms of polar response, but deployed separately.
_-_-bear
If I am correct, Zilch is RIP, so perhaps you may wish to start a new thread, since he can not comment. Apologies if I am thinking of another person, of course.
Unclear to me, btw why you would want or need to combine two full range speakers??
I was discussing them in terms of polar response, but deployed separately.
_-_-bear
I am sorry, pardon me
BTW if it is deemed objectionable to post in a thread started by RIP Member perhaps such a thread ought to be closed?
but why? it is an interesting thread, it would be a loss...
I am not sure what is unclear to You? because I am just asking about Ohm F and Beveridge
perhaps I can't understand Your post correctly and therefore my question is unclear
I assumed that "We should consider the Beveridge setup and what the Ohm F speakers do about this" equals "We should consider what the Ohm F speakers do about the Beveridge setup", was I wrong?
best,
graaf
Last edited:
Yes, your understanding of my English was not correct. I apologize for not writing with more clarity and for using too many prepositions and not enough nouns!
Let me restate:
We should consider how the Beveridge is setup and alsowhat the Ohm F's (more or less omni directional) speakers do about this (this = the point in question)
So I am saying - consider how Beveridge handles it AND also consider how Ohm F handles it.
Hope this clarifies... btw your other thread (Loudspeakers and room as a system) was quite interesting!
_-_-bear
Let me restate:
We should consider how the Beveridge is setup and alsowhat the Ohm F's (more or less omni directional) speakers do about this (this = the point in question)
So I am saying - consider how Beveridge handles it AND also consider how Ohm F handles it.
Hope this clarifies... btw your other thread (Loudspeakers and room as a system) was quite interesting!
_-_-bear
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.